"DOI will work with HUD to identify lands to offload for the development of affordable homes"

[2buffalo]

Gotcha. Okay in that case now that we have an admin that is deporting the illegals, why do we need to sell off public lands? Won’t this resolve as we clamp down on illegal immigrants?

I haven't seen any public land sold off yet. All I have seen is two agencies talking to states identifying potential underutilized land that could possibly be developed and a bunch of emotional people on RS losing their shit. Most of them are the same cast of characters that are on here all day which leads me to believe they are A- Cellar dwellers living with mom and dad. B- Non-productive employees that play on the internet all day or C- Welfare cases.

As for deportations, if they deported 1.2 million a year it would take a minimum of 20 years to get rid of them all. Thats 100,000 per month which I do not believe is happenIng. If the illegals were not being protected by progressive judges and politicians that have not a care in the world for the welfare of the American people it could be accomplished quicker but that is not going to happen until they are voted out.

 

[ScreamingPotato]

But they haven’t slowed down his efforts to secure the southern border very effectively- my understanding is the border crossings have plummeted and he’s deporting 10s of thousands of illegals per month even with “activist courts”. If illegals are the cause of the housing crisis, things should be slowing down enough that we’ll see the squeeze let up.

Bottom line is that I don’t see the “housing crisis” as enough of a crisis to justify public land sell-offs. Particularly if immigration is truly the reason for current home prices.

Yes something like 97% down according to local news. The damage has been done though, can't just sit back and pretend it hasn't and let people suffer.

 

[Ozarkansas]

Yes something like 97% down according to local news. The damage has been done though, can't just sit back and pretend it hasn't and let people suffer.

If illegal immigration is causing a housing crunch, and it drops by 97%, that ought to allow our current construction rates to catch up with demand pretty quickly. Again, I don’t see selling off public land as necessary here.







@2buffalo and yet here you are as well, Slinging mud every time.

 

[Coldtrail]

Though I in no way shape or form support illegal immigration, i don't see many illegals living in subdivisions on the outskirts of town other than showing up at 6am to swing a hammer and head back to the city. So based on what I've seen in my lifetime, this project could be the first in history where land just outside the city limits were purchased for an "affordable" housing development vs a sprawling community full of 5000sq' homes and covenants. Reading some of the posts one could be left to believe that the young working class is lining up to try to buy all the older 1000-2000sq' homes in town but getting beat out by illegals, is that happening? Certainly isn't where I've been.

There are a ton of factors contributing to the housing crisis, immigration is one, but there are several others, a big one being just how much people are willing to pay to keep up with the Jones's, the unwillingness to buy a "starter home", developers being very politically connected, people unwilling or having the know how to "fix" things up, very specific needs etc etc. it's really been a perfect storm for developers to cash in and I have no reason to think that industry or current administration wants to work to take things the other direction so they can build cheaper, smaller homes out of the goodness of their hearts for working folks? How many people are owning multiple large homes "estates" in several states, using them a few weeks a year and taking up the footprint that could be used for "affordable" housing? What if someone proposed each one of those estates giving up 10acres for housing? How would that go over? For many working folks public land is our "estate" and we shouldn't be so quick to give it up.

 

[TaperPin]

One county in Nevada would like 40,000 acres, with 33 acres set aside for affordable housing. I have little doubt this is not an isolated idea and I bet counties all over the west have similar plans. So when every county with their hands out are all tallied up will the land giveaway be millions of acres with a few hundred for cheap housing?

Rosen Introduces Bill to Make More Federal Lands Available for Housing Development, Protect Public Lands in Washoe County - Jacky Rosen

The Washoe County Lands Bill Would Protect Public Lands, Support Tribal Communities, Allow For Responsible Development, And Create New Opportunities To Lower Housing Costs WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Jacky Rosen (D-NV) announced that she is reintroducing the Truckee Meadows Public...

www.rosen.senate.gov

 

[wyosam]

One county in Nevada would like 40,000 acres, with 33 acres set aside for affordable housing. I have little doubt this is not an isolated idea and I bet counties all over the west have similar plans. So when every county with their hands out are all tallied up will the land giveaway be millions of acres with a few hundred for cheap housing?

Rosen Introduces Bill to Make More Federal Lands Available for Housing Development, Protect Public Lands in Washoe County - Jacky Rosen

The Washoe County Lands Bill Would Protect Public Lands, Support Tribal Communities, Allow For Responsible Development, And Create New Opportunities To Lower Housing Costs WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Jacky Rosen (D-NV) announced that she is reintroducing the Truckee Meadows Public...

www.rosen.senate.gov

That’s what I’ve seen with county boards approving new developments- a small slice for “affordable” housing and the rest of the pie for more sprawl that locals can’t afford. Homes for for more high income people who work mostly remotely. That does help fund the affordable part of the development, but it also just keeps pulling the prices up. It’s going to continue regardless in places with private land to be sold- there is always a number that gets people (or corporations) to sell to developers.

There’s too many people, and we just keep making more. A good first step would be to stop incentivizing having a bunch of kids in the tax code.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[KurtR]

That’s what I’ve seen with county boards approving new developments- a small slice for “affordable” housing and the rest of the pie for more sprawl that locals can’t afford. Homes for for more high income people who work mostly remotely. That does help fund the affordable part of the development, but it also just keeps pulling the prices up. It’s going to continue regardless in places with private land to be sold- there is always a number that gets people (or corporations) to sell to developers.

There’s too many people, and we just keep making more. A good first step would be to stop incentivizing having a bunch of kids in the tax code.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

According to this we are making less people.

In 2023, the US fertility rate, the average number of children born to a woman during her reproductive years, hit a record low of around 54 births per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44, a 3% drop from the previous year.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

• Record Low Fertility Rate:
  The US fertility rate in 2023 was at its lowest level in over a century, with a 3% decrease from 2022.
  
  
• Birth Rate Decline:
  The number of births in the US also decreased by 2% in 2023 compared to 2022.
  
  
• Total Fertility Rate:
  The total fertility rate, which is the average number of children a woman is expected to have in her lifetime, was around 1.62 children per woman in 2023.
  
  
• Factors Contributing to the Decline:
  Several factors are believed to contribute to the declining fertility rate, including women delaying motherhood, economic downturns, and increased awareness of reproductive health.
  
  
• Comparison to Previous Years:
  In 1957, the fertility rate was 122.9 births per 1,000 women ages 15–44, which is more than double the current rate.
  
  
• Implications:
  The declining fertility rate raises concerns about the future of the US population, including potential workforce shortages and challenges for social security and healthcare systems.
  
  
• Data Source:
  The data on fertility and birth rates comes from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

 

[wyosam]

According to this we are making less people.

In 2023, the US fertility rate, the average number of children born to a woman during her reproductive years, hit a record low of around 54 births per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44, a 3% drop from the previous year.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

• Record Low Fertility Rate:
  The US fertility rate in 2023 was at its lowest level in over a century, with a 3% decrease from 2022.
  
  
• Birth Rate Decline:
  The number of births in the US also decreased by 2% in 2023 compared to 2022.
  
  
• Total Fertility Rate:
  The total fertility rate, which is the average number of children a woman is expected to have in her lifetime, was around 1.62 children per woman in 2023.
  
  
• Factors Contributing to the Decline:
  Several factors are believed to contribute to the declining fertility rate, including women delaying motherhood, economic downturns, and increased awareness of reproductive health.
  
  
• Comparison to Previous Years:
  In 1957, the fertility rate was 122.9 births per 1,000 women ages 15–44, which is more than double the current rate.
  
  
• Implications:
  The declining fertility rate raises concerns about the future of the US population, including potential workforce shortages and challenges for social security and healthcare systems.
  
  
• Data Source:
  The data on fertility and birth rates comes from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Awesome! Now if only the economy (and everything else mentioned) wasn’t dependent on continuous exponential growth. Guess between this and deportations we should be good to leave public land as it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Billinsd]

I voted for the current administration, am in favor of their stance on deportation, and am 100% against their stance on developing public land. Those things do not have to be mutually exclusive, and you don’t have to support a political platform on every single issue without thinking critically for yourself… JFC

Excellent! That what I was trying to get out of you. I agree with everything you said, except I disagree with you on developing public land. You are NOT the problem. I'm wondering who valves public land much more than our country and it's borders. Carry on. Bill

 

[Billinsd]

@Billinsd I don’t get your point. Great, we got someone in office who is tough on illegal immigration! That was sorely needed. But now, their administration is doing stuff I don’t support. I’m going to voice opposition to those things. Why on earth would you NOT oppose policies you disagree with?

I agree with you completely. Illegal immigration is a priority with me and the core issue why we will lose hunting opportunities in the future. It's like how some guys here won't support any organization, no matter how much they could contribute to hunting if they have anti 2nd amendment elements or support anti 2n Amendment causes. There are giant issues I disagree with Trump on like Imminent domain for land development projects. Carry on.

 

[Billinsd]

If illegal immigration is causing a housing crunch, and it drops by 97%, that ought to allow our current construction rates to catch up with demand pretty quickly. Again, I don’t see selling off public lands as necessary.

It's the people that are here and people that have come here legally and illegally for 50 years that are contributing to the housing crisis. Selling off federal public land hasn't been demonstrated to show that it will solve any housing crisis. Obviously, building homes on Federal Public land will create more homes and lessen the demand, but how much who knows?

 

[Dos Perros]

One county in Nevada would like 40,000 acres, with 33 acres set aside for affordable housing. I have little doubt this is not an isolated idea and I bet counties all over the west have similar plans. So when every county with their hands out are all tallied up will the land giveaway be millions of acres with a few hundred for cheap housing?

Rosen Introduces Bill to Make More Federal Lands Available for Housing Development, Protect Public Lands in Washoe County - Jacky Rosen

The Washoe County Lands Bill Would Protect Public Lands, Support Tribal Communities, Allow For Responsible Development, And Create New Opportunities To Lower Housing Costs WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Jacky Rosen (D-NV) announced that she is reintroducing the Truckee Meadows Public...

www.rosen.senate.gov

Nevada is 80% federal land.

 

[Billinsd]

Though I in no way shape or form support illegal immigration, i don't see many illegals living in subdivisions on the outskirts of town other than showing up at 6am to swing a hammer and head back to the city.

It's complicated. The laborers buy homes/rent in the crappy part of town, not in new subdivisions on the outskirts of town, correct! Their children grown up and buy new subdivisions on the edge of town and then their grandchildren and on and on. Laborers do compete to live in the crappy part of town with some new renters and home buys, who end up buying on the outskirts.
Or take me, born and raised Californio, parents both from Minnesota. I am tired living here in San Diego, which is OVER RUN! And I buy a few new lots at the outskirts of town for me and my grown kids. Isn't it obvious that this is happening?

 

[Dos Perros]

https://maps.app.goo.gl/VNBA5aXL1TjfMK85A Sell this thing at market value and use the funds to acquire more land elsewhere.

 

[Billinsd]

Awesome! Now if only the economy (and everything else mentioned) wasn’t dependent on continuous exponential growth. Guess between this and deportations we should be good to leave public land as it is.

Nothing is dependent on CONTUOUS EXPONENTIAL GROWTH!! That is a very bad thing. Steady long term growth is necessary for a healthy economy and the well being of the county and it's citizens.

 

[elkhunter505]

Nothing is dependent on CONTUOUS EXPONENTIAL GROWTH!! That is a very bad thing. Steady long term growth is necessary for a healthy economy and the well being of the county and it's citizens.

Not sure how to do it, but we need to break the relationship between growth and the economy/power. Growth at the level we see across the planet is unsustainable. If we could level everything off and be at basic replacement rates or even if we were slightly declining, it would be better for recreation, better for the planet, better for communities, better for everyone across the world. I feel like there are lots of political things that are forcing population growth to continue. One of them is not helping developing nations to become educated and the second is the need for people to create power/money. Seems like it’s in a global interest to stagnate or decline population sizes but we are too busy fighting power battles over religion or philosophy to just leave everyone else alone and chill out.

 

[Billinsd]

Not sure how to do it, but we need to break the relationship between growth and the economy/power. Growth at the level we see across the planet is unsustainable. If we could level everything off and be at basic replacement rates or even if we were slightly declining, it would be better for recreation, better for the planet, better for communities, better for everyone across the world. I feel like there are lots of political things that are forcing population growth to continue. One of them is not helping developing nations to become educated and the second is the need for people to create power/money. Seems like it’s in a global interest to stagnate or decline population sizes but we are too busy fighting power battles over religion or philosophy to just leave everyone else alone and chill out.

Growth in China and India is not sustainable talking globally. There are not nearly enough resources for everyone in the world to live at our standard of living, either. The reduction of famine and disease in third world countries, mostly due to World Christian Charities created the global population boom, because people didn't reduce the number of children they were having after many were surviving. Global overpopulation and our own extremely opulent lifestyle is unsustainable. My lifestyle is extremely opulent, do I want to drastically change, no. Do I conserve? Yes. Do I want to live in an apartment and take the bus around? No. The global wars are a different issue from overpopulation. There are Rhino and democrats chickenhawks in the US that seem to love wars and others apparently have big investments in defense contracts. Constant wars serve no purpose. We should lookout in the world for our own interests, but should stop fighting and defending others unless it's truly in our national interest.

 

[wyosam]

Nothing is dependent on CONTUOUS EXPONENTIAL GROWTH!! That is a very bad thing. Steady long term growth is necessary for a healthy economy and the well being of the county and it's citizens.

The planet can’t sustain steady long term growth, either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Billinsd]

The planet can’t sustain steady long term growth, either.

At it's current population, absolutely not. What's a good option that doesn't hurt us Americans? Our economy relies upon long steady growth, otherwise it will faulter and fail. The planet is dynamic and billions of years old, we have been here such an infinitesimal time and could dissappear even faster. The planet will survive, humans probably won't. On the other hand humans are extremely intelligent and most successful in creating thriving living conditions out of hostile environments.

 

[Ozarkansas]

https://maps.app.goo.gl/VNBA5aXL1TjfMK85A Sell this thing at market value and use the funds to acquire more land elsewhere.

That’s something I would be onboard with since it essentially amounts to a land exchange. I have zero context for any potential ecological/recreational value for that land you linked, but generally speaking I’d give my support if the solution amounts to “sell ecologically insignificant lands in urban areas and use the funds to acquire more public land”.